June 28, 2004 Archives

oops

[]
posted by catherine / June 28, 2004 / 1 comment /

forgot to add norbizness to my blogroll. i love his site. very funny. also uses acqua teen hunger force in his banner, which is always a plus. also comes to the liberal, common sense rescue from time to time on a small victory, when i am at the mercy of the hands of throngs of french-hating commentors.

la musica

[]
posted by catherine / June 28, 2004 / 2 comments /

for those interested, here are a list of shows i will 100% definitely be attending this summer:

  • tuesday, june 28, wolftrap: ben folds / guster / rufus wainwright (guster are a leftover love from my days of pure college rock, and i really think they've gotten better with every album. i'm not an enormous fan of ben folds, but i think he'll be good. and if you know me, you don't need to ask to know how i feel about rufus. lovely rufus.)

  • thursday, july 1, fort reno: ted leo / the evens. (i am becoming increasingly obsessed with ted leo and the pharmacists' "hearts of oak." so much so that i want to stalk mr. leo around d.c. (i hear he moved here recently) even though he is apparently about five feet tall. "hearts of oak" is just...what a great summer album. go ahead, listen to "where have all the rude boys gone?" and dare tell me you don't involuntarily start singing along. also, charles or tommy, i can't remember, said the evens are ian mackaye's new band, so if you're a fugazi fan, you should come out too.)

  • sunday, july 4, galaxy hut: travis morrison. (god. i might want to stalk ted leo around d.c., but i want to stalk travis morrison around d.c. and then have 10,000 of his babies. so much so that i'm even foregoing fireworks. and i really like fireworks.)

  • monday, july 5, fort reno: q and not u / the party line. (to be honest, i've never been that into q and not u, but i've always assumed that's a failing on my part for not being cool and musically-indie enough. a lot of my friends adore them. so therewith i shall go.)

  • thursday, july 8, iota: the damnwells / juliana hatfield. (i know nothing about juliana hatfield, but i have to say i really like the damnwells' "bastards of the beat." it's kind of like ryan adams-lite, circa heartbreaker.)

  • saturday, july 10, there are actually two shows i want to go to, so i'm not sure if i'll make one or both (their times are a bit staggered, and maybe doable). we have: live on penn, old 97s opening for eve 6 (kill me now). i do love the old 97s, and even though i was exhausted and fell asleep the last time i saw them at the 9:30 club, i'm betting they'll be playing lots of new material since they've got a new (and apparently good) cd out in a couple of weeks. the other show: 9:30 club, phanton planet / washington social club. how can i resist the boys that brought me the OC's theme song? and i've had lots of people tell me how good wsc are. so. it'll be a debate for the ages. not sure how it'll work out.

  • thursday, july 22, black cat: ted leo / radio 4 / tigers & monkeys. (yes with the ted leo again. i think, though, that at fort reno he's solo, and this time he'll be with a full band.)

  • saturday, july 24, live on penn: fountains of wayne (opening for they might be giants). (my love for the indispensable pop of FOW will never be questioned. best summer-type band ever? except maybe weezer. i dunno. anyway. they're so good and cute live. and my nerdy boyfriend likes TMBG.)

  • saturday, august 14, the black cat: a.c. newman (aka carl newman, lead singer of the new pornographers). (i bought this album last weekend, and have been so obsessed with "hearts of oak", which i bought at the same time, that i haven't even listened to it yet. but i'm basing attendance on all things new pornographer-ish. if carl newman writes all the brilliant NP songs, then his solo album stands a good chance.)

    any shows i'm missing?

  • science, cont'd

    []
    posted by catherine / June 28, 2004 / 5 comments /

    for anyone who was watching the argument about bush's "facts don't matter!" policy towards science and scientists on an earlier post comes this information, via kevin drum:

    The Bush administration has ordered that government scientists must be approved by a senior political appointee before they can participate in meetings convened by the World Health Organization, the leading international health and science agency.

    ...."No one knows better than HHS who the experts are and who can provide the most up-to-date and expert advice," [HHS spokesman Tony] Jewell said. "The World Health Organization does not know the best people to talk to, but HHS knows."

    sure, maybe hhs is supremely better and more knowledgeable than the WHO. but, as drum notes, later on in the LA times article comes this point:
    WHO panels sometimes have disagreed with positions taken by the administration. A WHO panel met in Lyons, France, this month and declared formaldehyde a known carcinogen — relying on studies that Bush administration political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency had rejected as inconclusive.

    Voting members of the panel included scientists from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health who had been authors of the studies.

    there's also this quote:

    "I do not feel this is an appropriate or constructive thing to do," said Dr. D.A. Henderson, an epidemiologist who ran the Bush administration's Office of Public Health Preparedness and now acts as an official advisor to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. "In the scientific world, we have a generally open process. We deal with science as science. I am unaware of such clearance ever having been required before."

    Henderson worked for the WHO for 11 years directing its smallpox eradication program. He said he could not recall having to go through government bureaucrats to invite scientists to participate in expert panels, except in the case of small Eastern European countries. In 2002, Henderson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and was praised by Bush as "a great general in mankind's war against disease."

    there is an objective scientific knowledge and process that exists outside of political guidelines. but looking at the bush administration's actions, you wouldn't know it. it's like we're in some sort of bizarre scientific middle ages, where science is science only if the president says so.

    Google Analytics